Why I try to remain anonymous

Last week, Jonathan Gold, the well-known restaurant critic from the Los Angeles Times, wrote a very thoughtful piece about why he is giving up the pretext of anonymity, following the lead of some other prominent critics, including Adam Platt of New York Magazine and Leslie Brenner at the Dallas Morning News.

Since several established critics have decided to come out, many people have asked me about why I still try to remain unknown, especially since I’ve been in San Francisco for more than 28 years.

One of the first questions people ask when we meet for the first time is: Don’t restaurants know what you look like?

My glib answer is, “They only know when they know.” Most of the time I can get into the restaurant and be seated before I’m recognized.

Even at restaurants where I think I’ll be known, I try to maintain an element of surprise by making reservations in other names, constantly using different phone numbers and changing e-mail addresses.

Last week I had just created a new account under the name of Mike Samuelson and reserved at Huxley, a restaurant I’ll be reviewing this weekend. In one of those fluky moves, I messaged my dining partner: “Our reservations at Huxley is at 7 p.m. tonight under the name of Mike Samuelson.” I didn’t pay attention that this actually went out on my Twitter feed, so 33,000+ followers knew where I was going. Oops….So as you see, my system doesn’t always work out.

Fortunately, it was my third, and final, visit for the review. I’ve always said that in an ideal world I’d be unrecognized twice and recognized once, which would give me the benefit of seeing what the kitchen routinely puts out, and then witnessing the very best they can do — presuming they care about impressing critics.

While some people think anonymity is a ruse in these times, I still believe that trying to maintain a low profile has an advantage. If nothing else, it sends the message that I’m trying to emulate the experience of an average diner and it lets the restaurant know that I’m not out for free food or special treatment. Most restaurants understand the rules and how I operate so chefs rarely send out extra courses or try to comp a meal.

There are advantages and disadvantages in trying to maintain anonymity, and it’s been a topic of ongoing discussion with my editors at The Chronicle for several years. I’ve been successful at keeping photos off the Internet, but that continues to get more challenging. In the United States it’s been a tradition to remain in the shadows, but in England and other places many respected critics have never made any pretense of being anonymous.

Not too long ago, The Chronicle’s publisher asked what it would take for me to be comfortable coming out. “Lots of discussion and probably some therapy,” I replied. I’m not comfortable with being known, even if I am sometimes recognized. However, that’s not to say I’ll remain steadfast, because in today’s world change is the only constant.